Josh's Weblog: A Reply to Angel Shamaya

A Reply to Angel Shamaya

Angel Shamaya read my recent piece on the ATF Statement on HR 218 and had a response for me.

Angel Shamaya wrote:

Special exemptions for government employees is not "firearms rights," Josh.

Ah, in this case they are. They allow off-duty and retired cops to carry. That's our in. The fact that they allow a class of people to carry, nationwide, is an improvement. That we are not easily members of that class is not as material as the easement of restriction.

To the contrary, it's just one more way to enshrine the unAmerican concept that working for the government means you should not have to obey the laws to which the people are subjected and under which peaceable citizens are fined, thrown in jail, imprisoned and even killed.

But they allow it for people who aren't working for the government at the time! I'm not saying this is a great victory for the common man, but it's a step towards boiling the frog.

I agree with you on some things, certainly in principle. I, for example, think it's horrible that Lon Horiuchi got a free ride for shooting Vicki Weaver. However, I can recognize an opportunity when I see one.

Here is a (surely partial) list of gun rights organizations who stood opposed to this evil and corrupt nonsense: http://KeepAndBearArms.com/CopsOnlyCCW/leaders.asp

I only ask that the cops who wanted my help getting HR 218 passed will help me when I try to get this passed.

Good luck. A large portion of the cop groups who endorsed HR218 don't support citizen carry in their own communities: http://KeepAndBearArms.com/CopsOnlyCCW/leosupport.asp

Well, I have many times expressed my own dismay at HR 218 in the past, and I didn't do much of anything to get it passed. However, now that it made it through the door it's up to us to reshape it in a more palatable form.

Frankly I don't mind having to shoot a police qualifier at my own expense if it can get me nationwide concealed carry. I know that many decry *any* restriction on concealed carry because it can (and, therefore, will, if we know our bureaucracies well) be abused. A universal (at least, on a per-state basis) qualifier for cops and private citizens has an appeal. If you can't arm your cops because the test was designed to keep out most private citizens, then you know something is wrong with the test.

I have a good relationship with many police trainers because I have helped them with some issues (a list including, oddly enough, cost accounting and parliamentary procedure). Perhaps I see the best side of them as a result.